A comparison of curriculum-based and norm-referenced measures in the identification of reading difficulty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study is to investigate the technical adequacy of two reading Curriculum—Based Measures (CBM5), to examine the relationships of the CBM5 to normreferenced tests, and to compare the strength of relationship of both kinds of measures to school—based indices of reading performance. The two CBMs (a word list sampled from several reading series and a passage reading test composed of ten Ginn 720 passages) were taken from the literature; comprehensive information about their technical adequacy had not been previously available. A review of the literature indicates that CBM, particularly reading CBM, is gaining increased attention in education because of claims regarding its utility in monitoring pupil progress, its ease of administration, and its relationship to local curricula as well as to learning gains. This study examined how reading CBMs and two subtests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985) relate to each other and to three school—based indices of reading performance: a school district reading test, program placement status (learning disabled or regular education), and a teacher rating scale of reading skill. Grade four students from one metropolitan Vancouver school district served as subjects (n=105). Of these, 35 were classified as learning disabled and 70 were classified as regular education. Learning disabled status was determined by judgments of a school district screening committee and by examining previous psychoeducational assessments. Reliability indices calculated on the CBMs supported claims for technical adequacy. These estimates were as follows: internal consistency of the word list was .97, internal consistency of the reading passages was .98 and .94 for reading speed and accuracy, test—retest reliability of the reading passages was .89 and .79 for reading speed and accuracy, and inter—rater reliability of the reading passages was .99 and .96 for reading speed and accuracy. Results indicated that the CBMs used in this study have high reliabilities. CBM5, especially the speed score from the- reading passages, demonstrated strong relationships to the two norm—referenced subtests. The pattern of correlations between the measures differed between the learning disabled and normal sample; analyses of variance demonstrated that all measures used in the study discriminated between the learning disabled and the regular education groups. Stepwise multiple regression and canonical analysis indicated that the two norm—referenced subtests, the speed score from the Curriculum—Based Reading Passages, and the accuracy score from the Curriculum—Based Word List were most efficient in “predicting” the three school-based indices of reading performance. Evidence for concurrent validity of curriculum—based and norm—referenced measures was found in this study. When administration time, instructional utility, and technical properties are considered, results indicated that the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement Reading Decoding subtest and the Curriculum—Based Reading Passages speed score are the most efficient of the predictor measures investigated in identifying and programming for Year Four children with significant reading difficulty. Implications for further research and the potential of CBM to accommodate instructional and measurement needs is discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».